If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm sad and glad to hear that the Canons tested showed just as much CA as the set I have. That is my least favorite part about them. (And that the 85 is focus by wire). On one hand I wanted to believe that I would be able to sell a couple and buy possibly better ones but it seems like they'll probably be similar. I did a comparison on thedigitalpicture on charts and had very similar findings to what you guys have regarding Canon/Nikon/Zeiss. By my count the Canons had worse CA and Edge sharpness but consistently slightly better center sharpness and sometimes had less vignetting. The Zeiss were worse all the way around let alone while stopping down the Canons and comparing at the same f-stop. The results look pretty clear over there (on charts at least which only tell a part of the story). What I really would like to see is the exact same tests done with ultra primes and master primes and maybe even Cookes. The basic thing I always wonder about is the expensive cinema glass vs the high-end still lenses in terms of pure sharpness, contrast and CA. Fortunately the easily swappable Canon and PL Mounts of the Epic are so quick that anyone can do very thorough tests at a rental house.

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
- Theodore Roosevelt

I always wonder about is the expensive cinema glass vs the high-end still lenses in terms of pure sharpness, contrast and CA.

- Modern good quality Lenses easily out resolve the camera in the center and in most cases the edges. So in terms of resolution you will not see big differences between any Stills or Cine set. CA varies quite a bit. Contrast is more of a subjective thing.... You'll find amazing and just good contrast in both stills and Cinema lenses.

-Cheap lenses can look amazing if you are a good cameraman and have good subjects to film...cheap lenses, within reason, are optically not that bad.

- Cinema lenses are built to very high optical and mechanical standards in low quantities with a design objective of being able to shoot moving images. You for the most part are paying for the mechanics and not the optics. However the optics are usually very good.

- It's hard to pull focus well on stills lenses that were built for AF camera systems. There may be electronic solutions in the future.

No surprise on the Leica R glass, this glass is no doubt the glass that performs less favorably to the Leica family, were currently the number one in Still glass is the S2 series, followed by the M series glass,
and even so with some manufacturers some glass of the old family is better then the new, it is not so with Leica, and buying the absolute latest generation of a given Focal will give you the very best.

I'm actually surprise not to see the Nikon have better scores, I now you too well Evin, NIKON GUY... ;)

But in Nikon's defense there is to say the obvious which you well know, which is that even Nikon, as any other company that has a Mass Production facility for their Lenses, their glass will have Quality Control issues, so possibly some of this glass was not their best?

Canon I'm with you on almost all but the 85mm f/1.2L II, this glass is absolutely phenomenal, and here again I promise you did get a copy that was not one of the good ones, and not to defend this particular focal and aperture it brings, but it is to be understood, that one can not have a SUPER FAST lens and also expect it to be STELLAR in its sharpness edge to edge, you need to stop it down to get the results, and this lenses are built to give you the chance to shoot wide open at this speeds to create something unique of an image, just like in the new Leica Noctilux 50mm .95, its insane, and it cost almost "3" times the price of the 50mm 1.4 ASHP yet is not as sharp.

Too bad you didn't trow the new 24mm TS lens, which is the absolute Sharpest and most contrasty 24mm even build by canon to date, will see what their new 24mm f/14L II will bring.

Honestly I do feel the lenses tested represented a pretty realistic cross section of what the average buyer will encounter. The 85mm 1.2L preformed great for such a high speed optic. I've used a few samples and all have been sharp in the center and all have showed a real propensity to CA, especially purple fringing wide open. The new Nikon G 85mm f1.4 also showed some CA wide open, it's the nature of high speed lenses. You well know that to completely correct this at 1.2-1.4 you need to go to the massively corrected designs of the MPs or Leica Summilux Cs.

- Modern good quality Lenses easily out resolve the camera in the center and in most cases the edges. So in terms of resolution you will not see big differences between any Stills or Cine set. CA varies quite a bit. Contrast is more of a subjective thing.... You'll find amazing and just good contrast in both stills and Cinema lenses.

-Cheap lenses can look amazing if you are a good cameraman and have good subjects to film...cheap lenses, within reason, are optically not that bad.

- Cinema lenses are built to very high optical and mechanical standards in low quantities with a design objective of being able to shoot moving images. You for the most part are paying for the mechanics and not the optics. However the optics are usually very good.

- It's hard to pull focus well on stills lenses that were built for AF camera systems. There may be electronic solutions in the future.